Thank you 3-holer for your depth of understanding.
Maybe time to go a little easier with the PPRuNe verdict on Justice Peter Mahon, and the verdict on his findings. Patently his findings have been debated in microscopic detail ad nauseam . Leading to great polarisation of opinion . In this present instance what 3-holer is saying hits the interpretive nail squarely on the head.
1. He did not (Justice Mahon) say it was incontrovertible fact that the crew did or did not do anything contributing to the accident. He said that it was his opinion. It is telling that after months of intensive examination of every shred of evidence he qualified his finding on the issue of culpability or not to stating 'in my opinion'.
2. On that evidence he concluded that the CFIT occurred due to a complex series of systemic errors.
3. There are a multitude of 'ifs' and 'buts' in any analysis in depth of TE901. That really goes without saying.
4. Interesting to speculate that were Justice Mahon with us still today that he might on revisiting that verdict
believe with hindsight that between the words 'not' and 'responsible' the word 'primarily ' be inserted.
Maybe not. For to have 'made no error' presupposes an absence of guilt. Never should sight be lost that the complexities of this investigation were legion and that the lessons to be learned will be deserving of study for long into the future.
Last edited by FAR CU; 16th Jun 2016 at 09:29.